1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. During the Plaintiff’s financial director’s business of managing the Plaintiff’s funds, L was convicted of having committed an occupational embezzlement and habitual gambling by remitting the Plaintiff’s funds to Defendant C, H, I, J, and K account in the name of Defendant C, H, J, and K from October 2015 to the deposit account or deposit account of the Internet gambling site, such as the account in the name of Defendant C, H, J, and K, and then arbitrarily used the money for gambling (Seoul District Court Decision 2019Da1031 Decided August 21, 202). B. L deposited the relevant remittance amount in the account in the name of the Defendants as indicated in the table below.

C 7,000,000 won C 7,500,000 won E 6,500,000,000 won G 6,500,000 won KRW 15,000,000 KRW 15,000,000 KRW Ha 5,000,000,000 KRW 15,000,000 KRW 316,860,000 [Reasons for recognition] 1,500 KRW 316,860,000 KRW 316,000 / [Reasons for recognition] The purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to claims against Defendant B, C, H, I, J, and K

A. The Plaintiff’s primary cause of claim 1) The Defendants asserted are those who operate the Internet gambling site or refund the gambling fund for the purpose of gambling foreign sources. Since L’s embezzlement of the Plaintiff’s funds was known or could have known of the fact that gambling was conducted habitually, it offered his account in his name for gambling, it should be held liable for damages as a joint illegal actor for L’s occupational embezzlement.

2) The fact that L transferred the Plaintiff’s funds to Defendant C, H, I, J, and K’s account under the name of Defendant C, H, I, J, and K, which was using the Plaintiff’s funds as the deposit account or exchange account on the Internet gambling site, is as seen earlier, and the Defendant B was the person who received money as stated in the purport of the claim from L and exchanged the money into Hong Congo.

However, the above defendants provided their accounts in their names, even though they knew or could have known of L's occupational embezzlement as an operator or a refund company of the Internet gambling site.

It is difficult to see, A.